The Qur’an Proves the Bible is True

July 12th, 2010

Part 1

Farsi Bible

“Thy Word is Truth” John 17:17
“کلام تو حقیقت است”
(Farsi/Persian)

The picture is of the Bible in Farsi/Persian. کتاب مقدس = “Holy Book”

Now, the Bible is true on its own power and evidence; it does not need the Qur’an to “prove” it is true. But, since it affirms both the OT and the NT – “The Gospel” as revelations from God, and since they were written long before the Qur’an, then the Qur’an at least demonstrates that the Bible is true and historically the previous Scriptures from the one true God of those same Scriptures. The verses we use from the Qur’an below are a good starting place to try to get Muslims to see that the Scriptures actually were not corrupted.

I recommend that you use the Bible a lot, especially the Gospels, in evangelism with Muslims, even though they will say that many parts of it are corrupt. Keep preaching and teaching the Word of God. But you can also use some verses from the Qur’an to demonstrate to Muslims that the Bible actually was never corrupted; at least Muhammad did not think so. It was only later that the Muslims had to come up with the doctrine that the Bible has been changed and corrupted. The is called “Tahreef” (تحریف) , which means “changed”, “corrupted”.

The Qur’an is not inspired or from God, but Muhammad thought he was getting revelations from God and he thought this was “completing all monotheistic religion”. Since it contradicts the gospel of grace and the truth of the Scriptures, we know that this was not really Gabriel who appeared to Muhammad. (Galatians 1:8-9)

I have interacted with many Muslims over the years on this issue. Recently this issue came up again when I was sharing the gospel with a Muslim.

Christians have rightly used Surah 10:94 to exhort Muslims to read the Gospel and ask the people of the previous Scriptures.

Surah 10:94 – “If you are in doubt as to what We have revealed unto you, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before you: the Truth has indeed come to you from your Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.”

Arabic of Surah Yunis (Jonah) 10:94

فَإِن كُنتَ فِي شَكٍّ مِّمَّا أَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ فَاسْأَلِ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكَ ۚ لَقَدْ جَاءَكَ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُمْتَرِينَ

A Muslim friend recently rejected this, in discussion with him:

“Before I do so I would like to stress the Quran does in no way shape or form ask us to consider what you have today as 100% inspired.”

The key phrase in his statement is, “what you have today”. So ask the Muslim when he thinks the Bible was corrupted to get a better feel of where he is coming from. If he says “before Muhammad”, then he has a problem, because Muhammad affirmed the previous revelations from God. Since the Bibles we have today are essentially the same as the Bible manuscripts long before Muhammad came along; our Muslim friends are wrong.

Dr. James White has adequately shown in debates with Bart Ehrman and Shabir Ally and others that the honesty and openness we have about the history of the text and the textual variants do not affect any major doctrines and are a very small percentage and that is an issue of scribal errors, not affecting the doctrines of inspiration or inerrancy. I highly recommend Dr. James White’s DVDs and debates against liberal skeptics and agnostics/apostates like Bart Ehrman, John Shelby Spong, John Dominic Crossan, and the ACLU lawyer Barry Lynn; and also his debates against Muslims, especially the ones against Shabir Ally, a top Muslim apologist and debater; and all of his debates against Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. (www.aomin.org – go to the store to order them)

The Scriptures are essentially the same (textual variants about John 5:4, and Mark 16:9-20 and a few other minor passages do not affect any major doctrine of the Bible) as those long before Muhammad’s time, (many Manuscripts from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th centuries – all before Muhammad; and “there is no changing of God’s word” (Qur’an 10:65; 6:116; 18:27; 6:34); and “ask the people reading the book before you” means both the Torat (OT) and the Injeel (NT); you are therefore wrong.

Furthermore, Mark 16:6-8 affirms the crucifixion, death, burial, and empty tomb, the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. Some Muslims try to use the fact that in the most ancient manuscripts we have of Mark, we don’t have verses 9-20 of chapter 16, and then they try to discount the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Moreover, all of the other true teachings of Mark 16:9-20, Jesus’ death and resurrection, appearances to the disciples, the Great Commission, the ascension, are testified for us in Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts chapter 1.

Surah 10, Yunis (Jonah) was revealed in the Meccan period (610-621), Pickthall says in the last 4 years of the Meccan period before the Hegira. The Hegira is the “flight” or “immigration” from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD, fleeing from the pagan Quraysh tribe who had rejected his message of monotheism.(The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall, p. 157)

Surah 10:94 is talking to Muhammad. It was an encouragement for him to stop doubting. He is to ask the people reading the Scriptures that were revealed before the Qur’an. (Includes both Torah, Zabur (Psalms of David), and the Injeel. – both OT and NT)

In the context of whole Qur’an, Surah 2:113, 2:136; 5:46-48; 5:68, and 29:46 (among others) demonstrate that the Qur’an’s writer thought all the Bible, both OT and NT was not corrupted, even though they did not have it in Arabic, and Muhammad did not know the contents of it, and did not know about the apostle Paul and did not know about some of the OT books.

Surah 2:113 -

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ لَيْسَتِ النَّصَارَىٰ عَلَىٰ شَيْءٍ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَىٰ لَيْسَتِ الْيَهُودُ عَلَىٰ شَيْءٍ وَهُمْ يَتْلُونَ الْكِتَابَ ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ قَالَ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ مِثْلَ قَوْلِهِمْ ۚ فَاللَّهُ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فِيمَا كَانُوا فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ

The Jews say: “The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: “The Jews have naught (To stand) upon.” Yet they study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.”

The fact that here in the Qur’an, it says that the Jews and Christians are reading the same book, and they are the previous Scriptures, this shows that Surah 10:94 also includes both the OT and the NT.

To be continued.

Posted in Islam, Missions | No Comments »

Cappadocia, Central Turkey

May 25th, 2010

Cappadocia: The Turks call it "the Land of strange shapes"

The Turks did not live in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bythinia in the New Testament era. Peter wrote to the chosen believers who were scattered throughout these Roman Provinces. (see I Peter 1:1-2) There are many ancient ruins of frescoes and churches in the caves of Cappadocia.


Inside of ancient church in Cappadocia, Turkey

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Incarnation, Atonement and Trinity

May 19th, 2010

Phil Keaggy, \”The Maker of the Universe\”

Phil Keaggy: The Maker of the Universe (Words by F. W. Pitt)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27GUZsrhxJ8&feature=related

“The Maker of the universe,
As Man for man was made a curse.
The claims of Law which He had made,
Unto the uttermost He paid.
His holy fingers made the bough,
Which grew the thorns that crowned His brow.
The nails that pierced His hands were mined
In secret places He designed.

He made the forest whence there sprung
The tree on which His body hung.
He died upon a cross of wood,
Yet made the hill on which it stood.
The sky that darkened o’er His head,
By Him above the earth was spread.
The sun that hid from Him it’s face
By His decree was poised in space.

The spear which spilled His precious blood
Was tempered in the fires of God.
The grave in which His form was laid
Was hewn in rocks His hands had made.

The throne on which He now appears
Was His from everlasting years.
But a new glory crowns His brow
And every knee to Him shall bow.

The Maker of the Universe”
____________________
I love this song! It captures the truths of the incarnation, the Deity of Christ, His humility and love and willingness to suffer for us. The incarnation and suffering of the eternal Son of God points to the Trinity, “trinitas in unitas”, “three in one”, as Tertullian wrote. In Against Praxeas, chapter 3.

James White has written, “I love the Trinity! . . . upon reflection, we discover that the Trinity is the highest revelation God has made of Himself to His people. It is the capstone, the summit, the brightest star in the firmament of divine truths. . . God revealed this truth about Himself most clearly, and most irrefutably, in the incarnation itself, when Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, took on human flesh and walked among us.” (The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 13-14)

I agree; I love the song, because I love the Trinity, and I love the incarnation and atonement, and how these truths point us to the God of the Bible, that Christians know; the only God. These truths are beautiful because Truth is beautiful. God is beautiful because He is true. I love God because He first loved me! ( I John 4:10; 19)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” ( John 1:1)

“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,” (Colossians 2:9)

“. . . Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. “For although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.” (Philippians 2:5-8)

“God, . . .
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
. . .
And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”
. . .
But of the Son He says,
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.”
(Hebrews 1:1, 3, 6, 8.)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. ( John 1:1-5)

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the one and only Son, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

In dealing with evangelism with Muslims, one must be prepared in the deep truths of the doctrines of the Deity of Christ, the incarnation, and the Trinity.

Some good books on the Trinity:
1. James White. The Forgotten Trinity. Bethany House Publishers, 1998.

2. Robert Bowman. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Baker Books, 1989.

3. Timothy George. Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? Zondervan, 2002. (While I disagree with Timothy George’s recent ecumenism with Roman Catholicism, this book is very good for the theological issues in dealing with Islam.)

4. John Piper. “Contending for Christ Contra Mundum: Exile and Incarnation in the Life of Athanasius”, in Contending For Our All Crossway Books, 2006. Piper’s chapter on Athanasius speaks to sound doctrine, apologetics, contextualization, heremeneutics, and he addresses the emerging church issue. Highly recommended.

The Trinitas Unitas God, “three in One” God is the Sovereign Creator God who is and was relationship from all eternity past. Amazing! Awesome!

The Trinity answers the issue of longing for that connection of relationship with the living God; He is relationship; love from all eternity; Lover, Beloved, and Love in relationship; Father, Son, and Spirit.

The Trinity and incarnation also answers the issue of suffering and why God has ordained that suffering and evil happen.

Dorothy Sayers wrote an interesting piece, seeking to answer the issue of why God allowed evil to come into the world. Reformed theology speaks of “God ordaining all things” – and when it comes to evil entering the world, we understand “ordaining” as “deciding that it would happen”, while at the same time not being the one who does the evil. (I John 1:5; Hab. 1:13; Isaiah 6; Titus 1:2) While some of Sayer’s statement is not theologically precise, and some is not the best wording; I still think it captures a good apologetic truth for the skeptic and a strength for a young believer growing in theology:

“For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is – limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death – He had the honesty and the courage to take His own medicine. Whatever game He is playing with His creation, He has kept His own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that He has not exacted from Himself. He has Himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation and defeat, despair and death. When He was a man, He played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worth while.” (Dorothy Sayers, Creed or Chaos? New York: Harcourt, Brace and Col, 149, p. 4; cited in Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions. Here’s Life Publishers, 1980, p. 153-154.

My Iranian friend Kamyar, who was my second Farsi teacher in 1994, said this to me:

“The two most amazing things about Christianity are:
1. That God, who we were taught was far off and aloof, became a man like us.”
and
2. That there is a way to be saved from sin and know it and have assurance of it.

“دو چیز خیلی عالی است در مسیحیت
1. که خدا، که ما تعلیم یافتیم که خیلی دور از ما می ماند، انسان شد مثل ما شد
و 2. که یک راهی را وجود دارد برای نجات از گناه و می توانیم آن راه را بدانیم، و اطمینان داشته باشیم
.

Posted in Islam, Sound Doctrine | No Comments »

The Light Shines into the Darkness

March 16th, 2010

نور در باریکی می تابد و باریکی بر روی آن نور چیره نشده است. یوحنا 5:1
“The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overpower it.” John 1:5

Posted in Islam, Missions, Uncategorized | No Comments »

خدا (Khoda) or الله (Allah) ??

March 15th, 2010

In Ergun Caner and Emir Caner’s Unveiling Islam, in the chapter on Allah (chapter 6 – “Allah: Names of Terror and Names of Glory” pp. 102-119, Kregel Publishers, 1st edition 2002), on page 106 they wrote:

“Many Arabic speaking Christians use the Persian term khudu for God, rather than cause confusion by calling Allah by the name God.”

This is wrong, Arabic speaking Christians do not use the Farsi/Persian word for God, “Khoda”. (or “Khuda”)

See the Wikipedia article on Khoda/Khuda:

Ergun Caner, also said in an interview documented below:

“Muslims who become Christians who speak Arabic, they don’t even use the word Allah. When they speak of God, they call him ‘Khoda,’ a Persian word, because we are so terrified of confusing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with Allah, the false god that we served as Muslims.”

See the documentation at Dr. White’s website:www.aomin.org

This is just not true, Arabs or Arabic speaking former Muslims, who become Christians, have no problem with the word “Allah” for Elohim in OT and Theos in the NT. (There may be individual exceptions to this; but generally; they still love their own language.) In fact the Bible in Arabic has translated Elohim in the OT and Theos in the NT as “Allah”. The word means “The God”, meaning, the one true creator, Sovereign, Almighty, Invisible God who is eternal. The word is related to the Aramaic and Hebrew words El, Eloha, etc. There is some excellent scholarship showing that the Arabic word Allah came from Aramaic (alaha)and the Peshitta (Syriac) translation of the Bible. (see -
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/alaha.html
and
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/alaha2.html

The El, Elohim, Eloha, alaha, Allah word-group denotes Power, Sovereignty, and Monotheism; these are the emphases of this word. Now, I agree with the Caners that the doctrine of who Allah is in Islam is wrong, incomplete, and not the God of the Bible, because Allah is defined as “not Trinitarian”, and cannot have within the Trinity ( Latin: Tri-Unitas, “three in one”), an eternal, Spiritual Father and Son relationship. (see Surah 112 of the Qur’an)

When Christians speak of The Father and the Son, we are referring to a spiritual relationship from all eternity, not physical. Muslims understand the word “Father” and “Son” to automatically mean that there was a mother and a physical, sexual relationship. (Qur’an 6:101/102) The Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches who call Mary, “The Mother of the God” and pray to her and have statues of her in worship contexts also confirm this misunderstanding in their minds. Jesus had no human father. Mary, His mother, was a virgin. Muslims also believe this. This is why giving a Muslim the gospels of Matthew and Luke are a good place to start, because they believe in the virgin birth of Al Masih. (Qur’an, Surah 19:19-21; 3:45-48)

Luke 1:34-35 tells us “for this reason” He will be called the Son of God – because of the power of the Most High, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Christians always understood the Father and Son relationship within the Trinity as spiritual, not physical. Islam rejects the Deity of Christ, and for Muslims “Holy Spirit” means an angel; so the god of Islam is not the God of the Bible doctrinally. However, linguistically, the best word in Arabic for “the one true creator God who is eternal and Sovereign and invisible”; is Allah.

What Caner is confusing is the fact that Persians (Iranians) are not Arabs, and they have their own language which is not Arabic, and their language is called Farsi or Persian. The Persians, from the word “Pars” are a Jephethite (Europeans, Indians (India), Kurds and Iranians are from Japheth) people, not Semitic. Farsi in its pure form, is actually closer to Latin, German, and English, than Arabic. But after the Islamic conquests of Persia, today Farsi has 40 % Arabic words and phrases in it, and the Arabs changed their script to the Arabic script, although Iranians had to add letters because there are four sounds that Iranians have that Arabs do not have. ( P, G, jh, ch ) The Arabs could not pronounce “p” when they attacked Persia (Iran) in Jihad and conquered and converted the Iranians to Islam. That is why “Pars” became “Fars” and “Parsi” became “Farsi”. It took about 3 centuries to fully subjugate them and change their Zoroastrian religion to Islam. Most of the Zoroastrians who kept their religion fled to India. Today Mumbai has more Zoroastrians than their original homeland, Iran (Persia).

Iranians generally don’t like the Arabs. And Arabs don’t like the Iranians either. But we Christians are commanded to love all people and nations: love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18; 33-34; Luke 10:25-37) Remember the Iran – Iraq war from 1980-1988? Deep historical and ethnic tensions were underlying that conflict. Sadaam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini exchanged curses at one another. Khomeini considered Sadaam not a true Muslim [which is true, Saddam Hussein was a very secular/Stalinist Muslim; the Baath party has that as its basic philosophy of mixing Stalinism and Islam] and eventually S. Hussein attacked Iran. Remember even centuries before that the Babylonian vs. Persia history? Iranians, Farsi speakers use “Khoda” for God, even Iranian Muslims use “Khoda” mostly because that is their language.

Iranians who have turned from Islam and repented of their sin and trusted Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord use the word “Khoda” and they do indeed have a problem with “Allah”, but Arabs do not have a problem with the word, “Allah”. Arabic speaking Christians use the word “Allah”.

Iranian former Muslims still use “Allah” in compound phrases like “Inshallah” (“If God wills”; which means “I hope so”, in every day speech) and “Al Hamdolellah” (Praise God) and “Allah O Akbar” (God is great).

Modern Turks also do not like the word “Allah” as much, either, as they have their own Turkish word for God, “Tanri”. The letter “i” should be without a dot over it, as it is a special letter sound in Turkish, but my key board won’t let me do that right now. (I don’t have Turkish software.) The Turks are not Arabs either. So, Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs are mostly Muslims religiously, however, they each have their own ethnicity and language that is different from one another.

Many Iranians today are disillusioned with Islam. But, strong Iranian Muslims use “Allah”, but usually they are those that are very, very strong. (Those that follow the philosophy and Twelver Shiite Islam of Ayatollah Khomeini (the founder of the Islamic Regime in Iran and who died in 1989) and the current Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i and President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad.) Most Iranians I know do not like the term “Allah” because it reminds them of the Arab invasions and force and Jihad under Khalif Omar, starting around 633-651 AD and beyond and the current Islamic Regime, started by Khomeini in 1979.

The Caners seem to be confusing their facts. What I think they mean is that Persian Iranian Muslims who come to Christ do not use Allah anymore at all, or very rarely, but they use Khoda. But even non-Christian (nominal Muslims) Persians prefer “Khoda” to “Allah” anyway. Even strong Iranian Muslims probably use “Khoda” more than Allah, just because it is their language. It is an ethnic, language issue.

“Allah” reminds Iranians of Omar, the Arabs, Jihad, force, and the harsh Khomeini regime. Some Iranians have a celebration where they make a puppet (effigy) of Omar and stick fire crackers in his mouth and blow him up and cut him up into pieces. They hate Omar because he attacked Iran in Islamic Jihad and forced the Iranian people to become Muslims. This is also part of the Shiite vs. Sunni hatred from the Iranian side. A Persian Shah by decree decided the Iranians would be Shiites (around the time of the Reformation in Europe) because they did not want to be like the Sunni Arabs and Ottoman Turks. But Southern Iraqi Shiites are ethnic Arabs.

In conclusion, in witnessing to Muslims, we have to start at a place that they can understand us. As Dr. White says in his debates with Muslims, “We both believe that God can communicate.” We both believe in Monotheism, that there is only one Sovereign, Invisible, Creator, eternal God. The Almighty has communicated through prophets, apostles, books; that is, revelation. Also, language is very important, Bible translation is necessary, and communicating the gospel into the heart languages of Muslims, so that they can understand what we are saying, is part of the missionary task. It is ok to use “Allah” for God for Arab Muslims, and other Muslims for whom that is the best word that communicates the one eternal creator, Sovereign God. Other Muslims, prefer their own language, and they prefer the word for God in their mother tongue. From there, we must give the Muslims the Gospel (Injeel) in their own language and encourage them to read the gospels first and let the Holy Spirit work on their hearts to see Al Masih (The Messiah) in the Scriptures.

Below is John 1:1-6 in Arabic. Notice how many times “Allah” اللَّهِ is used. See website below. Arab Christians do not use the Persian word “Khoda”.

فِي الْبَدْءِ كَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ وَالْكَلِمَةُ كَانَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَكَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ اللَّهَ. 2هَذَا كَانَ فِي الْبَدْءِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ. 3كُلُّ شَيْءٍ بِهِ كَانَ وَبِغَيْرِهِ لَمْ يَكُنْ شَيْءٌ مِمَّا كَانَ. 4فِيهِ كَانَتِ الْحَيَاةُ وَالْحَيَاةُ كَانَتْ نُورَ النَّاسِ 5وَالنُّورُ يُضِيءُ فِي الظُّلْمَةِ وَالظُّلْمَةُ لَمْ تُدْرِكْهُ. 6كَانَ إِنْسَانٌ مُرْسَلٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ اسْمُهُ يُوحَنَّا.

http://www.al-ketab.net/

Genesis 1:1 in Arabic:

فِي اَلْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اَللهُ اَلسَّمَاوَاتِ وَاَلأَرْضَ

Some of these words we also have in Farsi. You can see “Allah” (الله)is the fourth word here. (going from right to left)

I invite anyone to look at these many Arabic speaking ministries and see that they do not have a problem with their own language and do not have a problem with using the word “Allah” for God, for Elohim in the OT and for Theos in the NT.

http://www.arabicbible.com/directories/web.htm

Posted in Islam, Language Issues, Missions | No Comments »

“So Why Did Allah Substitute an innocent ram (or sheep or lamb or goat) in place of Abraham’s son?”

January 17th, 2010

In the photo below,(a post card from Turkey) you can see Ibrahim (Abraham) (pictures of a prophet drawn by Muslims!), Ismail, the angel Jabril (Gabriel), and the substitutionary ram; and verses from the Qur’an in Arabic, including Surah 37:107 (see below) and a phrase in the Turkish language, “Ibrahim offers his son Ismail as a human sacrifice”.

Post Card from Turkey for Kurban Bayram or Eid Al Azha or Eid-e-Qurban (The Feast of Sacrifice)*

* “Kurban Bayram” is Turkish; “Eid Al Azha” is Arabic; and “Eid-e-Qurban” is Farsi. They all mean the “Feast of Sacrifice”.

In “The Cross Debate” between Dr. James White and Shabir Ally,
 (Which I highly recommend)

Shabir Ally says (as all Muslims also do), that God does not need a sacrifice to forgive sins. He also said that there is a great difference between “ransom” and “sacrifice”; and that the concept of the substitutionary nature of Christ paying for the sins of others is unjust. Shabir Ally said, “there is a difference between sacrifice and ransom; they are two different things, . . . until Anselm”. He also referred to some of the early church ideas of “ransom to Satan”, which is not Biblical at all; and he seemed to imply that “ransom” in Mark 10:45 was the “payment to Satan view”.

Yet the Qur’an testifies that these concepts of ransom and sacrifice are tied very closely together in one act; from the Old Testament story of Abraham. Even in the Qur’an, there is a key verse that includes both concepts of “ransom” and “sacrifice” together in this one act of Allah providing a substitute for Abraham’s son.

In the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, the Qur’an says:
وَفَدَيْنَـهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ

“We have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice.”
Qur’an 37:107

فَدَيْنَـهُ = “we ransomed you”

بِذِبْحٍ = بِ =b = “with” or “by”; ذِبْحٍ (zbh)= sacrifice, slaughter, slain victim

The cognate Hebrew word for sacrifice is similar, ZBH, זֶבַח

عَظِيم = “great”, “mighty”, “tremendous”

We are not going to deal with the question of which of Abraham’s sons this was, except to affirm the Bible’s testimony that it was Isaac (Genesis 22:1-18); and to point out that Muslims have traditionally held that it was Ishmael, although the text of the Qur’an does not say this specifically. It is interesting that only Isaac is mentioned by name in this context. (Surah 37:112-113) You can go to www.answering-islam.org and do searches there to find lots of information on that issue.

When sharing the gospel with Muslims, it is not necessary to argue over which son of Abraham it was that was to be sacrificed; especially when you will want to focus on the more important issue of the gospel and the substitutionary sacrifice/atonement of Jesus Christ (Isa Al Masih) for the sins of people from all nations/cultures/tribes/tongues. (Revelation 5:9, John 1:29, Mark 10:45; I Corinthians 15:3-6; Romans 5:9) I have seen former Muslims (Iranians); after becoming Christians, be surprised to find it was Isaac when they read Genesis 22; after they already studied the NT and came to faith in Christ as their Savior, substitute for sin; but they immediately said, “Ok, it is the word of God, I accept it.” (that it was Isaac)

My focus in this article is on the substitutionary nature of the sacrifice of the Messiah; and that the story of Abraham and Allah’s command to sacrifice his son, and the ram who was substituted is in the Qur’an and actually shows some basic understanding of the truth of the concepts of sacrifice and ransom. In this verse, 107 of Surah 37 (Al Saffat, “Those who set the ranks”), both words are used there together of the substitute, ransom (fedieh – فدیه) and sacrifice ذبح – zebh ); this word is also used a few verses earlier in verse 102, “Oh my son! I have seen in a dream that I offer you in sacrifice.”). We have both of these Arabic words in Farsi (or Persian) also. So, Shabir Ally should have understood this, that God has spoken of both ransom/redemption and sacrifice in the Old Testament, the “Taurat- e- Mosa” (the Law of Moses) and the Qur’an affirms it here.

Christians believe that the substitute points to the Messiah to come and was a prophesy of the Messiah and His substitutionary atonement.

Fedieh, or the root, “fada”, are also used of Muslims who voluntarily are willing to give their lives in the front lines of fighting the enemies of Allah in “holy war”, (Harb, Qatal, or Jihad) Harb حرب means “war”; Qatal ( قـتـل)means “fighting”, “slaying”, “fight to the death” (see Surah 8:39; 9:5, 9:29); and Jihad means to “exert effort”, “striving”, “struggle”. All are used in contexts of military fighting against the Kufur/kaferoon, or unbelievers, infidels, or blasphemers.

For an excellent study of Jihad in Islam, see: “Jihad” in the Qur’an and Hadith,

You may have even heard of the “fadayeen” (those who sacrifice themselves) in the news, they are those who volunteer to fight against the enemy. So there is a sense in which Islamic culture and history should understand Jesus the Messiah’s death as a voluntary sacrifice for others. Another word, “qorban” (قربان) is related to the Hebrew/Aramaic term “Corban”. (mentioned in Mark 7:11; the Hebrew is in Leviticus 1:2 twice, and other places.) When Iranians greet one another, we say, “Ghorban-e-shoma!” قربان شما (“I am your sacrifice or ransom!” – a term of devotion and love and friendship.) When the Arabs converted the Iranians (the Persians) to Islam, it took them about 300 years, but a lot of Arabic came into their language so that, today, Farsi is about 40% Arabic.

In an online Arabic dictionary, looking up the word ransom (“fedieh”, “efteda فدية, إفتداء ) is defined as “freeing or releasing from sin”
خلص من الخطيئة
or “freeing from slavery or bondage”. إفتدى أسيرا, حرر أسيرا

In sharing the gospel with Muslims, key verses to use are:
John 1:29 – Muslims believe in John the Baptist as a prophet ( He is called “Yahya” یحیی) “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

Mark 10:45
“The Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom (فدیه، فدا) for many.” The Farsi versions of this verse have the same root concept of this word, “fada”فدا , from “fedieh” فدیه .

John 10:17-18 – Jesus voluntarily laid His life down.
For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

Muslims say it is unjust for God to “force” Jesus to die and pay for the sins of others. John 10:18 shows that there is no “forcing” or injustice in this. This charge of “injustice” and “forcing” is surprising, coming from Muslims, because Allah is Al Jabbar, (Qur’an Surah 59:23, “the one who forces”; (الجبار, from جبر = “force”, “destiny”, “fatalism”). Allah can do whatever He wants, according to Islam. “Allah is the very best deceiver” – (Qur’an 3:54; 8:30; see also 10:22)
الله خیرالمکارین

This word for deceiver, (Makara, from “makr” = deception) is not translated correctly by most English translations of the Qur’an. It is usually translated as “plotting” or “planning”, but it clearly means “deception”, “scheming”, “trickery”, “guile”.

In Islam, Allah is sovereign and can sin and lie; but in the Bible, God is both sovereign and cannot sin; He cannot do anything that is against His nature. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19) nor sin; God is holy. (Isaiah chapter 6; I John 1:5; Habakkuk 1:13; Hebrews 6:18) God is pure and holy and has just wrath against sin. (Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 1:18; John 3:36; Mark 9:48; 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10)

John Piper has some excellent articles on the issue of God’s sovereignty and Him ordaining/deciding/allowing that sin/evil happen. At www.desiringGod.org
Does God Lie?

God’s Sovereignty in allowing/ordaining that sin happen while remaining Holy.

Colin Smith had a good series of articles showing the difference between God’s Sovereignty in the Bible and Allah’s sovereignty in Islam. www.aomin.org
Here are two of them here and here Look around for the others in Colin Smith’s series there at www.aomin.org.

The cross is where God’s holiness/justice/wrath against sin and His pure love and mercy for sinners meets together. “Loving-kindness and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” (Psalm 85:10)

John 10:18 shows that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit – see Hebrews 9:14) decided together to accomplish the work of redemption. As Dr. White said in the debate, “Redemption is Trinitarian; the Father, the Son, and the Spirit work together in perfect harmony.” (I am paraphrasing from memory.)

Revelation 5:9 – God is loving by redeeming people from all nations, peoples, tongues, and tribes. God demonstrates His love by sending His Son to die for us. Romans 5:9

God is both just (wrath against sin) and the justifier (love for sinners). (Romans 3:24-26) The cross preserves the holiness of God and the love of God together! That truth is beautiful and amazing! In the atonement of Christ, He became flesh (John 1:1, 14) and lived a perfect, sinless life ( 2 Cor. 5:21; John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26-27; I Peter 2:22; I John 3:5). Even the Qur’an calls Jesus the Messiah a “faultless”, “sinless son” ( Surah Maryam 19:19). Jesus willingly and voluntarily let Himself be the ransom and sacrifice for human beings from all nations. (Revelation 5:9) (John 10:18; Luke 22:42; John 12:27) He knew He was going to be killed and crucified; and that He would rise from the dead; and He predicted it. (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34; Matthew 16:21; 17:22; 20:17-19)

So, ask your Muslim friend, “Do you believe that Al Masih (The Messiah) was sinless?” (Qur’an 19:19) Was Al Masih born of a virgin? (3:45-47; 19:19-21) They must answer: “yes”. He had no human father. (Emphasize this again; see my earlier article on explaining to Muslims how Jesus is the Son of God.

Ask your Muslim friend: “Do you believe in the story of Ibrahim (the way a Muslim would say “Abraham”) and when Allah commanded Ibrahim to sacrifice his son?” In response, I have had Muslims say to me, many times, “Yes, Allah O Akbar! We believe in all the prophets!”

Then ask, “So why did Allah substitute an innocent ram (sheep or lamb) to be killed instead of Ibrahim’s son? Let them struggle with coming up with the answer.

When witnessing to Muslims, if they are from another country, it is important that they read the New Testament in their own heart language. Find out what is their heart language and order a NT from an on line source and give it to them as a gift. Watch the Jesus film together in their language. Have them read in their own language, whether it is Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Urdu, Pushto, Uzbek, Kurdish, or English, about the sins of the heart in Mark 7:20-23. Point them to Matthew 5-7. Show them that not committing physical adultery is not enough to be righteous; sexual lust in the heart condemns them to hell. (Matthew 5:28ff) Not murdering is not good enough for being righteous; hatred and anger in the heart is enough to condemn us to hell. (Matthew 5:21-26) Unforgiveness cherished in the heart can condemn to hell also (Matthew 18:21-35) After death comes the judgment. (Hebrews 9:27) Self righteousness, hypocrisy, lack of confession that one is a sinner, and pride will condemn us also; there is no justifying grace for anyone who will not confess he/she is a sinner and is in need of forgiveness. (Luke 18:9-14)

Ask your Muslim friend, “Do you believe in Yahya ( John the baptizer)?” Muslim: “yes, Allah O Akbar! We believe in all the prophets!” Then listen to what he said, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29)

Muslims celebrate the “feast of sacrifice” ( Eid Al Azha عید الاضحی or Eid e qorban عید قربان) by remembering the event of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son. They slaughter sheep, goats, bulls, lambs, cows, and sometimes even a camel.

Millions of Muslims, over a billion people take part in this slaughtering all over the Muslim world in this re-enactment of the concept of substitution, yet they are taught that it means nothing; just go through the motions, read the verses from the Qur’an, slaughter the animal, and give the meat to the poor. They remain ignorant of this great truth and are told a great lie, that Jesus did not die on the cross. (Surah 4:157) Dr. White calls this one verse, “40 lonely Arabic words”, because it is the only place in the Qur’an that denies the death/crucifixion of Jesus and no commentary is on this verse in the Hadith collections.

Muslims popularly “feel” they are doing something for God in this. They “feel” that doing this sacrifice will protect them from evil or tragedies. Where do they get that idea? Is there somehow a sense of “appeasing the wrath of God” in their minds and hearts?

I will never forget seeing the sheep lined up ready for slaughter and bleeting, “baaaaa baaaa”. The sheep is blindfolded and some words are spoken; prayers, readings, “bismillah Al Rahman Al Rahim” (“In the name of Allah, the most compassionate, the most merciful”) “Allah O Akbar!” A large knife comes out and the cutting begins. The animals writhes in pain and struggles to get free. The men hold him down. The pain is terrible. Blood squirts, tendons snap; bones crunch and then that last breathe goes out of the animal.

When I saw that feast of sacrifice for the first time in Turkey in 1987; Genesis 22, Exodus 12, the book of Leviticus and Isaiah 53 came alive for me like never before! I really understood the wrath of God as the justice of God against sin in a fresh and powerful way. The saddest thing though, it that Muslims are taught that this does not mean any kind of substitutionary sacrifice for sin. “No one can pay for your sin; you must pay for your own sin.” Yet, deep down, at least with Iranians, the feeling and understanding is that this sacrifice will protect them from a future calamity or tragedy.

The violence of the slaughter is a picture of the wrath of God against sin. My hair on the back of my neck stood up and I almost threw up from the smells and violence of the thing. When we say “the blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin”; it means the violence of shedding the blood; the fact that an innocent, sinless victim became our substitute and took our place. The violence and shedding of blood is a picture of God’s justice against sin. So, the wrath and anger of God is a holy justice. Jesus took the justice for us on the cross!

Posted in Islam | No Comments »

Hot issues in missions and Muslim outreach today

December 16th, 2009

1.  On the Common Word and Yale Response –

John Piper’s website has the recent panel on “The Common Word” at ETS in November: (18-21, 2009)

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByDate/2009/4396_Evangelicals_and_A_Common_Word/

For more background, see under # 3.

Joseph Cumming (one of the writers of the Yale Response spoke, along with C. Donald Smedly) Defending the Yale Response

Two Muslims spoke – Caner Dagli (born in  USA, but parents are from Circassian/Turk background) http://web.roanoke.edu/x5950.xml?refurl=x5950.xml)

and Joseph Lumbard (American convert to Islam) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E.B._Lumbard

Two Evangelicals – John Piper and Al Mohler – who voiced their concerns and disagreements to both the “Yale Response” and the “Common Word” of the Muslim scholars.

Question and Answer time was very interesting.  Piper and Mohler both do a great job of voicing their profound disagreements in a godly manner.  A great example of “speaking the truth in love” ( Ephesians 4:15) and what I like to call, “the balance of Apologetics and Agape love”.  (see I Peter 3:15; Jude 3, 21)

2.  On the Insider’s Movement (also known as C-5 church planting/ “common ground” methods) conference by I2 ministries –

http://www.i2ministries.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:insidermovementconferencedvdarticle&catid=36:new-stuff-category

This is a very good biblical, theological and missiological critique of the “Insider’s Movement” or C-5 level church-planting, or also known as “Common Ground” strategies or methods.

3.  John Piper’s original response and concern and “deep disappointment” over the Evangelicals who crafted and signed the “Yale Response” to the “Common Word”.  (Piper’s response was in January 2008; the “Common Word” of the Muslim scholars was sent out in October of 2007)

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1032_a_common_word_between_us/A Common Word Between Us?

Posted in Islam, Missions | No Comments »

Reformation, Martin Luther, and Justification by faith alone

October 28th, 2009

Reformation, Martin Luther, and Justification by faith alone

Posted in Sound Doctrine, church history, reformation | No Comments »

Missions and Reformation Together

October 28th, 2009
God judged the church by allowing Islam to conquer

God judged the church by allowing Islam to conquer

The ruins of columns of an ancient Byzantine church in the ancient city of Philadelphia, now called Alashehir, Turkey. The Turks did not live in the modern land what is called “Turkey” today; in the NT days it was Asia Minor, Anatolia, Galatia, Cappodocia, Bythinia, Pontus, Phrygia, and Armenia. The Seljuks Turks first came to Turkey in the east in 1071 and defeated the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert near Van. Then the Ottoman Turks defeated the Byzantines in Contstantinople in 1453 after the many wars and battles of the Crusades period of 1095-1299 and beyond. Notice the Islamic minaret in between the ancient church ruins. Like the church at Ephesus, the church in Philadelphia eventurally left its first love also. ( Revelation 2:4-5) Every generation is responsible for the great commission in their own time. Just because a land had the gospel before in history, does not mean that it should not have the gospel preached again to that same land, because the people are different; different ethnicities, and different generations.

The early church had “quickly deserted Him who called you by His grace” (Galatians 1:6) and eventually, the churches in Revelation chapters 2-3 did the same thing.

As we celebrate the Reformation on October 31 this year, we are reminded of several things:

1. Individual churches did fail in history; and that does not go against the promise of Matthew 16:18.   That even in the Scriptures, at that time in history, individual churches were very quickly drifting away from the truth of the gospel. Galatians 1:6-9

This shows that they can drift and cease to be true churches. God warned all the churches by His warning to the first church there in Revelation 2, Ephesus: “If you don’t repent, I am coming in judgment and I will remove your lamp stand, unless you repent.” (see Rev. 2:4-5) All the churches in Revelation 2-3 were eventually conquered, first by the Goths, then by Islam. There are a few Eastern Orthodox people left in Izmir ( Smyrna) today, but that is all from those that claim the ancient succession.  There are alive, biblical churches, underground, evangelical, Protestant, in other parts of Turkey.

- “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed!”

2. Galatians 1:8-9 teaches Sola Scriptura in principle. The fact that the apostle Paul considered his letter, by him writing it, and using these words, ” . . . so I say to you now . . . “ (v. 9) shows that he is communicating in the same way that Jesus did when Jesus said, “have you not read what God said to you?” ( see Matthew 22:31). The Scriptures are “God speaking”. Paul considered his letters, as “God speaking”, as “God-breathed”. (see also I Corinthians 2:13; 4:6; 7:40; and 14:37) That, and along with the fact that this gospel and his apostleship was not from men or humans or by the agency of man” (verse 1), shows that he knew His letters were authoritative and had the God-breathed quality of Scripture. This demonstrates, in principle, that the canon existed before being called “canon”, that is, the historical ontological existence of the books of Scripture was at the time of writing (48-70 AD or 48-96 AD) “canon” (which was a measuring rod that eventually meant, “standard”, “rule”, “principle”, “criterion”, “law”, before it meant “list”. See Galatians 6:16; and a textual variant at Philippians 3:16 for this meaning of the Greek word, “kanon”.); and was before the human process of the early church of discerning, sifting, and putting all the 27 books “under one cover”, so to speak.

Luther says on this text: “Here then is a plain text like a thunderbolt, wherein Paul subjects both himself and an angel from heaven, and all others, doctors, teachers, and masters, to be under the authority of the Scriptures.” (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, quoted in Tabletalk Magazine, January, 2009, p. 29.)

“In spite of this emphatic denunciation so many accept the pope as the supreme judge of the Scriptures. “The Church,” they say, “chose only four gospels. The Church might have chosen more. Ergo the Church is above the Gospel.” With equal force one might argue: “I approve the Scriptures. Ergo I am above the Scriptures. John the Baptist confessed Christ. Hence he is above Christ.” Paul subordinates himself, all preachers, all the angels of heaven, everybody to the Sacred Scriptures. We are not the masters, judges, or arbiters, but witnesses, disciples, and confessors of the Scriptures, whether we be pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, or an angel from heaven.” Luther, Galatians, at 1:9, see here.

3. Remember Sola Fide; Justification by faith alone. We should celebrate Luther’s insight by reminding ourselves of it – this is dramatically illustrated here at Lane’s blog with a short clip from the old black and white movie about Luther.

The Roman Catholic Church had drifted from the Scriptures and the truth of the gospel and replaced it with ceremonies, relics, indulgences, prayers to saints and Mary, exalting Mary too much; the treasury of merit, purgatory, baptismal regeneration as the ex opere operato work that causes regeneration and initial justification, mortal vs. venial sin categories of being able to loose real justification; and good works as conditions for regaining and keeping justification, and other “sacramental treadmill” works such as transubstantiation and confession to a priest. The result being that no one could ever be sure they were even justified or saved.

Posted in church history, reformation | No Comments »

Witnessing to Muslims: Explaining the “Son of God” terminology

September 8th, 2009
Bad Witness: Roman Catholics praying to and bowing down to Mary

Bad Witness: Roman Catholics praying to and bowing down to Mary

Someone recently called into the Dividing Line Program * and asked for help on witnessing to Muslims. He told of his experience in a Muslim area in Africa (Uganda) and that the Muslims kept saying, “God cannot reproduce!”; “God cannot have children!” How many times have I heard this over the last 26 years in witnessing to Muslims?!: “God cannot have a wife!” “God cannot have a son!” “God did not lust after Mary and marry her and have sex with her!” “God cannot beget!” The Qur’an, Surah 112 is targeting the Biblical content of “the Son of God” and “begotten” terminology.

To our Roman Catholic and Orthodox readers – see, here we have a living example of recent history of Muslims who still believe the Trinity is “Father, Son, and Mother”. (Surah 5:116) This is very common all over the Muslim world. I know from experience also. So, the Marian dogmas and practices and praying to her and having statues and icons and exalting her too much are still contributing to that mis-understanding. The Qur’an defines for them what we believe – Surah 6:101 – they don’t really care what the official doctrine of the Trinity is.

“Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; How can He have a son when He hath no consort [spouse, mate, sexual partner]?” He created all things, and hath full knowledge of all things.” ( Qur’an 6:101, with my own parenthetical comments)

Pictures of John Paul 2 (and other Popes and other Roman Catholics) bowing down before a giant statue of Mary just confirms in their minds and hearts what the Christians really believe.

Only very educated Muslims who take the time to read and study find out what the doctrine of the Trinity is; and it is usually their “apologists” who are trained to come to the west to seek to win westerners to Islam.

I would like to suggest that believers in Jesus Christ slow things down a bit for the Muslims and, to use a mathematical learning analogy, instead of trying to teach them Calculus (the eternal Sonship of Christ and the Trinity); we should begin with simple math: like addition, subtraction and multiplication. We will get to Calculus, don’t worry, but don’t move there too quickly.

1. With passion and conviction, agree with your Muslim friend that it is Blasphemy to think God took a wife !! Get worked up over this and show them with passion that we do not believe this. There is a fun Arabic phrase that many Muslims know and use when someone says something wrong, “Estaqrf’ullah !” (“May God forgive you!”; “May it never be!”) I have used this and it is effective to show how strongly the Bible is against their idea of what “the Son of God” or the Trinity means. Focus like a laser beam and spend time on this with your Muslim friend before you try and explain the “eternal Sonship” of Christ and “eternally begotten” language, or the Trinity. Abdul Aziz’s brain fries when you move too fast and try to explain the doctrine of the Trinity or the eternal Sonship of Christ before you convince him that 1. You don’t believe God got married or had sex with Mary; and 2. You don’t believe in three gods. It is also effective to stay on monotheism for a while and quote and use Mark 12:29 (Jesus quoting the Shema in Deut. 6:4).

Muslims are fun people to witness to! They are willing to talk about God and spiritual things. They believe in right and wrong and heaven and hell, and judgment day. I have had many Muslims say to me, “I respect you Mr. Ken, because you believe in your book as the truth.” “Most of the other Christians we meet don’t really believe they have the truth.”

Muslims are incredibly hospitable and we need to learn how to reach out in friendship evangelism, along with apologetics and debate; and one time “contact” evangelism. Jesus was the friend of sinners and tax-collectors, eating meals with them and spending time with them. We need to show Christ’s love by being willing to have meals of shish kebab and hummus and drink strong Arabic/Turkish coffee with them.

Trying to explain the Trinity and the eternal Sonship of Christ too soon for Muslims is like trying to explain Calculus before addition, subtraction, and multiplication. You can and should eventually get to those truths; but it is better to start on the basic issues to help the Muslim overcome them; all the while praying that God will open their eyes and heart to understand and believe. ( John 6:44; Acts 16:14) It may not happen in one setting either. Many missionaries to Muslims have said that the average Muslim usually needs to hear the gospel 100 times over a period of 1 year in friendship with a true Christian. Obviously God can open the heart and draw in only one hearing of the gospel. We are only saying that this is the experience of many missionaries who have spent lots of time with Muslims; including this writer.

2. Point out that the Qur’an also uses metaphoric language of filial terms, “son” and “mother”. The Arabic phrase, “son of the road” ( Ibn ol sabeel ) = “traveler”, “wayfarer”; “mother of the book” ( um ol kitab ) = source of revelation; “Mother of villages” = Mecca. (Surah 6:93, 42:7, Pickthall’s footnote) In Egypt, the Arabic expression, “son of the Nile” – “one who lives on the Nile River.

“Son of the Road” (Qur’an 2:177; 4:36; 8:41; 9:60), “Mother of Book” (Qur’an 13:39; 43:3-4; 3:7) “Mother of Villages” – (Qur’an – 6:92; 28:59; 42:7)

Can roads, villages, rivers, or books have sex or get married? Asking this question will confound and silence the Muslim for his attacks and lack of listening to our explanations of “the Son of God”.

This proves that metaphoric language is used by the Qur’an, and the Muslims should then give respect and a ear to us when we are also using the term metaphorically.

This proves that is not blasphemous to call Jesus, “the Son of God”, because the Bible does not mean it in the way that Muslims think when they hear the phrase.

The Qur’an affirms the virgin birth of Christ. (Surah 3:47; 19:19-22) Affirm that Jesus had no human father; therefore, in this sense, God was His Father.

Luke 1:34-35 sounds very similar to the Qur’anic passages on the Virgin Birth of Jesus. It is powerful to use passages in the Bible that are similar to verses in the Qur’an to begin with to establish understanding, and then go forward.

3. Show them some specific Scripture, especially the NT and the Gospels. If possible have them read it in their heart language, whether it is Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Urdu, Pushtun, Kazakh, Malaysian, or Fulani.

I have found that Luke 1:34-35 along with Hebrews 10:5 to be very effective in answering the “Son of God” terminology.

Luke 1:35 – “ . . . for this reason, the Holy offspring will be called the Son of God”
For what reason? Because Jesus had no human father; and because of the “power of the Most High” and “the Holy Spirit” who conceived, unified, joined spiritually inside the womb of Mary – so, it is NOT from marriage and sex; that is blasphemy (and what Mormons and Greek mythology believed). Rather, the phrase “Son of God” describes the close eternal spiritual relationship that the Father and Son have always had from all eternity past, being of the same nature, but in personal relationship. God is personal, not an impersonal force or principle. God is Spirit (John 4:24), so there can be no physical sex or marriage. This is what Surah 112 and 6:101 and 5:72-73 and 5:116 are speaking against, they are speaking against understanding God and terms like “father”, “son”, and “begotten” in a physical, sexual way.

I have found that Hebrews 10:5 is very effective. – “a body You have prepared for Me”. This shows that Jesus existed before He was born and that God prepared a body for Him.

4. Then you can go to John 1:1 and 1:14 and proceed from there. John 1:1, 14 are powerful for the Muslims because they clearly are calling Jesus “the Word”. Before you can explain any thing about the Tri-unity of God, “the one nature  of the one true God in three persons”, you need to focus on who Jesus Christ is.  In the Qur’an, Isa (the Arabic Islamic word for “Jesus”) Al Massih is called “the word” in Arabic. (Kalimat’allah) (Qur’an 4:171; 3:45) This is a powerful tool. Focus on “the Word” of God before you focus on the “Son of God”. “Allah’s word was with Him from all eternity, right?” You can ask your Muslim friend these kinds of questions: “Did Allah ever exist without His word (His mind expressing itself)? And what about Allah’s Spirit? Was there ever a time where Allah was without His Spirit?” Jesus is also called “a spirit from Allah”. (Ruh min Allah) in Qur’an 4:171. That verse denies the Islamic understanding of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the Sonship of Christ; but it does call him, Al Massih (the Messiah), the son of Mary, the Word, and a spirit from Allah; so it is useful to begin with Muslims from where they are coming from; and then go to Scriptures in the New Testament that we emphasized above. We can communicate the “eternal Son of God” (into the past in relationship with the Father) by focusing on the eternalness of the Word of God in eternity past.

* The Dividing Line is The webcast of James White; www.aomin.org; http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3484

It is very good on apologetic and theological issues.

Posted in Islam, Sound Doctrine | No Comments »

« Older Entries